If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You've put in the time and effort - stood in a safe Labour electorate, been rewarded with a marginal electorate, made a decent showing - maybe even won it, been rewarded with a safe National seat, you make it onto the party list, you get a shadow portfolio, you ask the patsy questions, you defend the indefensible, you swallow all the dead rats that come your way, you're an undersecretary, then a secretary, then a junior minister, then a senior minister, and then . . . .

The party helicopters in Don Brash. . . . or John Key. . . or Mister Luxon. . .

As a Senior Figure in the party, as a Senior Minister in the government - bang! wham! you've just hit the glass ceiling.

Of course they are, and every party gets caught with a rogue occasionally, but what on earth is your concern with Luxton and his selection?

I saw Ross the other day, standing forlornly in front of a shop in Howick, peddling his 'save our cockles' petition (seriously!). In the 15 minutes I was there, doing some shopping, he did not get a single approach or anyone acknowledging him.

Why would an ambitious aspiring politician bother, knowing that the glittering baubles of office are forever out of reach?

Are you saying Luxon should be excluded from membership of the party? Or are you saying he shouldn't be able to stand as a candidate?
I don't know the first thing about him, but I gather he has made his name in the corporate world, rather than as an axe-murderer.
As far as I know, I could join any one of our political parties. I also think I could try and get elected as the candidate in any party. So could you. Why not Luxton?
I have no idea why the glittering baubles of office would be out of the reach of any capable MP, or why you think they would be.

"Former Prime Minister Jim Bolger says one way to avoid skulduggery over political donations is to do away with them.The National Party remains under a Serious Fraud Office investigation into claims it breached electoral laws by splitting a big donation into smaller amounts that did not require the donor to be made public.Now New Zealand First is pushing the law to the limits by setting up a foundation that lends money to the party, meaning the money is not legally defined as donations."

While we await the serious fraud investigation into the national party( jeez it would only take a week in China heres an indictment on Nick smith and National actively encouraging farming intensification in Canterbury. No responsibility taken oh no. Remember Nick Smith saying our rivers are wadeable, lol what a sad sorry representative of the people and our environment this guy has been
"In their retiring speeches ten years later the commissioners denied they were appointed to increase irrigation and intensify farming in Canterbury but the reality of what happen in that decade tells a different story. The Statistics New Zealand website shows that total dairy cow numbers in Canterbury in 2017 were 1,326,513 a 40 per cent increase from 938,453 in 2010."
Throwing democracy to the people A good article ,letting kiwis decide.

I think it was Stephen Franks who had a recent blog post around political donations, and how much it might take to influence policy.

And around whether anonymity was a desirable thing when it came to political donations.

Since the parties themselves are proving somewhat inept at coping with the issue, perhaps it might be better to funnel or channel all donations through the Electoral Commission - or some special-purpose entity.